Not PC

Friday, February 01, 2008

Beer O'Clock: Bill Shakespeare & beer

A more contemplative Beer O'Clock for you this avo. "Wot's 'contemplative' mean?" you ask? If you do have to ask, let me warn you this post is probably not for you.

This week we celebrate the connection between beer and Bill Shakespeare. If you ask this time, "Wot connection?" then this post is very definitely worth pursuing. You see, according to new friend George Light (who writes at the NeverMind Aesthetic blog), your basic garden ale was "the little drink that made the glories of the English stage possible."

Without beer, no Bill (not least because his father was an official ale-taster, which meant sitting around in leather keks to test the quality of beer). So not only no beer, no Bill - it also turns out that without Bill, no beer.

You see, Elizabethan pubs hosted entertainment for the same reason that today's pubs host karaoke: because it pulled in the punters. The strolling players of Will Shakespeare's troupe performed the same function then that gigging guitarists do today: and it was William Shakespeare who wrote the very best material for those players. It was Shakespeare's stuff that brought in the punters that allowed the world's first commercial brewers to prosper.

All hail The Bard!

If this astonishes those of you who take their theatrical performances only with "a glass of wheet ween, darling,"' then let George tease out the historical implications of all this for you. Theatre began, he says, "as a physical extensions of drinking establishments, with inn-yards being utilised as the first semi-permanent sites of theatre..."

Turns out William Shakespeare made of a lot of early brewers very happy. And turns out today's theatre-goers have more to thank yesteryear's ale drinkers than they might realise.

This weekend, raise a glass to old Bill -- and to learn much, much more about beer, The Bard, and the Elizabethan ale and beer wars, download and consume George Light's 'Beer & the Bard' here [pdf]. "For a quart of ale is a dish for a King!" as the Bard himself once said. And as his own King Henry said ... "I would give all my fame for a pot of ale." A very wise king indeed.

The threat of blackouts is the product of the extraordinarily bad energy policies followed by the governments of the last twenty years, and of the even worse strategy they intend to follow in the next ten.

Nothing to see ... no principles, no ideas ... (updated)

John Key's National Party announced the first wave of their strategy for Election Year 2008 yesterday: they're going to outflank Labour on the left. In 2005 Don Brash's National party called interest-free student loans "an irresponsible election bribe." Yesterday Key's Labour-Lite endorsed the irresponsible election bribe, and added a further ten percent. Story here.

2008: the year of the 'me-too' election.

UPDATE 1: It's said that the interest-free student loans policy would be "too difficult to unpick." Not at all. As a few commenters here have suggested -- and as has been Libertarianz policy for some time -- all that's necessary is to sell the loan agreements off to whoever wants them, at whatever mark down bidders think is workable. Let them "unpick" what should never have been knitted in the first place.

UPDATE 2: Speaking of centrist mush ... on the back of John Boy's nine questions to Helen the other day, SOLO's Lance Davey has ten right back at him. Just to remind you, John Boy's original nine questions were:

Why, after eight years of Labour, are we paying the second-highest interest rates in the developed world?

Why, under Labour, is the gap between our wages, and wages in Australia and other parts of the world, getting bigger and bigger?

Why, under Labour, do we get a tax cut only in election year, when we really needed it years ago?

Why are grocery and petrol prices going through the roof?

Why can't our hardworking kids afford to buy their own house?

Why is one in five Kiwi kids leaving school with grossly inadequate literacy and numeracy skills?

Why, when Labour claim they aspire to be carbon-neutral, do our greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise at an alarming rate?

Why hasn't the health system improved when billions of extra dollars have been poured into it?

Why is violent crime against innocent New Zealanders continuing to soar and why is Labour unable to do anything about it?

Good questions all, but as I pointed out the other day, John Boy has no more answers than Helen does -- so as Lance says, given National's well earned reputation as Labour-Lite let's ask:

Why, after eight years of Labour, have we heard National whine about high interest rates - but never once offer a plausible alternative solution? Not once.

How exactly would the gap between our wages, and wages in Australia and other parts of the world stop getting bigger and bigger under your stewardship, if all you are offering is Labour-Lite?

How will tax cuts be either affordable or practical under your regime, given how scared you are of the dreaded "P" word (privatisation), your unwillingness to countenance serious steps to roll back the welfare state, and no meaningful plans whatsoever to cut government spending beyond "attacking waste" -- which every opposition party since time began promises, but none ever elected ever achieves?

Do you recognise that with grocery and petrol prices already going through the roof, your stated goal to "reduce carbon emissions" to an even greater extent than Labour will send the price of groceries and petrol even further skyward?

Are you aware that in several recent reports the blame for high housing costs was laid squarely at the feet of over-regulation? Do you remember who it was that introduced the worst of these regulatory laws, the Resource Management Act? Since you weren't in the country then, let me remind you: it was National. Or who administered it without change for nine years and two elections? Let me remind you again: it was National -- and, for five of those years, National's present environment spokesthing Nick Smith. "Far reaching environmental legislation" Smith calls the RMA.

Do you realise that one in five Kiwi kids who left school under the last National Government left with grossly inadequate literacy and numeracy skills as well? Do you know that nothing tangible has changed on that score since your own sorry stewardship? And why, under your own proposed regime, will four in five New Zealand children still be forced to endure indoctrination by the state at the factory schools responsible for NZers' grossly inadequate literacy and numeracy skills? And why are the so called 'educationalists' responsible for that tragedy not already on your hit list?

Why does National buy into the nonsense of man-made Global Warming anyway?

If the health system hasn't improved when billions of extra dollars have been poured into it, will National dare do the right thing and work to privatise health? Or will it keep flogging the same die-while-you-wait horse?

What would your government do, John, to fight the causes of violent crime? With most of those responsible for violent crime having been scarred with illiteracy caused by the state's factory schools, what do you propose to do about that? With the modern rise in violent crime having been largely congruent with the time that the unwanted children of DPB recipients came to adolescence, what do you propose to do about that? What do you propose to do about the police spending more time doing over innocent people for driving fast -- or smacking their kids -- or defending themselves against violence -- than they in addressing real crime? For arresting and incarcerating more and more New Zealanders guilty only of victim-less crimes, when so many real criminals and real crimes with real victims are left un-addressed? What will you do about all the anti-individualist and quasi-socialist statist busybodies that infest your own party (people like Jaqui Dean, the daft bint crusading against any "think of the children" cause thrust under her ignorant, self-serving nose) and about all the soaring state interference at the personal level of what you can, can't, must and should not consume, do or think? What will you do to end the nannying?

In short, what exactly will you do to work towards your party's purported goal of minimising the government and keeping them out of our lives?

Any further questions? Any chance, do you think, of any plausible answers -- any at all -- either now or in the months to come?

Second Jacobs House - Frank Lloyd Wright

The Jacobs family loved their first house so much that when they moved in 1942 in order to get away from the town that was sprawling out to meet them (Wright's advice when first the bought -- which they didn't take -- was to buy out as far as they could afford, then go out just a litle bit further) they commissioned another Wright house, and once again he produced a 'first.'

This time it was what he called a double-storey 'solar hemicycle' for the northern American prairies; tucked down behind an earth berm to protect it from freezing northerlies, and opening up to the south on both ground floor and mezzanine to sun and gardens and a pool half-inside and half-outside.

The Jacobs family built the house themselves, and by their own account lived a charmed life there.

Thursday, January 31, 2008

Paying no-hopers to breed produces ....

Here's another government disaster we're now all paying for: The tremendous rise in youth crime. The explosion in youth crime since the early eighties is largely due to people being paid by the government to have children they don't want.

Paying people to have children they didn't want started in the early seventies. By the early eighties those children were old enough to make other people's lives a nightmare, and the violent crime statistics much larger.

Think about it. What sense is it being forced to pay no-hopers to breed, and then wondering why their progeny go wrong?

First, a quote from earlier in the week: “Education in the government's factory schools is pumping out an ever-increasing number of functionally illiterate and unemployable youths - good for nothing beyond stuffing a ballot box." - Peter Osborne

And a cartoon (from The Free Radical):

And now, some good news. The Government appears to have accepted the bad news that "the literacy level of about 800,000 workers is such that they might struggle to transfer printed information to an order form - a deficiency cited as a factor stifling the country's economic growth" -- and, not incidentally, blighting the lives and futures of at least 800,00 New Zealanders. Story here. Puff piece here.

The bad news is, first, that according to Pete Hodgson, it is businesses who will be expected to teach their own workers reading, writing and maths "under a complex new plan to raise the skills of the workforce."

Business New Zealand chief executive Phil O'Reilly - who, with Government and New Zealand Council of Trade Unions, is part of the new Skill New Zealand Forum developing the plan - [said he] didn't want a "bureaucratic nightmare" for business [but] "We've got a problem in terms of functional illiteracy and innumeracy in our workplaces. We are poor by world standards," said Mr O'Reilly.

At least it means the schools responsible for this disaster won't be getting their hands back on the evidence of their resounding failure. But the further bad news however, completely un-addressed by this "complex new plan," is that the factory schools that churned out this horde of functional illiterates continue to sail on regardless. One in five of the New Zealanders who attended those schools for ten years or more failed to attain the most basic of life skills, yet nothing about that revelation will cause any sort of re-examination by those responsible.

That is outrageous. It would happen in no other line of endeavour except one monopolised by the state.

Those who continue to insist that the state simply must take charge of primary and secondary education might pause to consider what this figure shows about the efficacy and content of what those factory schools have been and are continuing to delivering -- in recent years it's been mostly bullshit, mush and toxic swill. If you thought they were primarily teaching literacy and numeracy, you were obviously very much mistaken -- it's mostly about the seven-lesson inculcation of servitude.

If you ever thought that appalling figures such as these would get the planners behind the factory schools asking themselves serious questions about their plans and their success rate (or lack thereof), then you've been hoodwinked. And if you ever wondered whether a private organisation with failure of this magnitude would be able to get away with it, then I have a bridge I can sell you.

The tragedy of wholesale illiteracy and innumeracy must be laid firmly at the door of the mandarins responsible for the method of teaching and the content of what is taught at the state's indoctrination centres. It is not enough to pick up the lives of those blighted by those mandarins years later. It is essential that those responsible are urgently removed from the responsibility of filling up further young minds, and be placed where they are never in such a position again.

As every year a new horde of young New Zealanders surges forth into the world, one in five of whom after ten years of factory schooling are unable to function in the modern world, the situation becomes ever more urgent. Don't just wring your hands in impotent despair at the tragedy. Don't just bewail the youngsters' sorry futures. Don't just join me in hammering the factory schools. Join me in going in there and taking them all back.

Wednesday, January 30, 2008

NOT in support of murder

I must confess I'm disturbed by the many messages of support and sympathy I've seen around the place for the fifty-year old murderer of Pihema Cameron, a man who knifed the fifteen-year old for the offence of tagging his Manurewa fence. This wasn't self-defence, for which he'd have my support. He didn't drag the young tagger from his fence and discipline him, for which he might have my sympathy. He didn't just chastise him, which he certainly deserved. Instead he chased him three-hundred metres down the road and stabbed him through the heart. That's not self-defence -- the only legal defence available to him. That looks more like murder.

For tagging his fence, he murdered him.

I just don't understand how people can support murder.

Now I don't know the murdered youngster from a hole in the ground -- which is where he is now -- but when I was Pihema's age I must confess to having tagged a building or two around South Auckland. I'm not proud of it. It wasn't smart. But I grew up. Pihema Cameron never will.

The Minto myth (updated)

Poneke explains why John Minto was one of the heroes of his formative years, and why he is no longer.

A good read, and topical, since Minto has made news for refusing to accept the South African award of the Order of Companions of Oliver Tambo, reserved for “eminent foreign nationals and other foreign dignitaries for friendship shown to South Africa.”

The Presidency has noted publication of an open letter addressed to President Thabo Mbeki written by Mr. John Minto of New Zealand. In the letter, Mr. Minto claims, amongst other things, to have been nominated for the prestigious Order of the Companions of OR Tambo.In this regard, the Presidency wishes to place it on record that Mr. Minto has not, as a matter of fact, been nominated as a candidate for any of our national orders.

Minto has now been reported in the Dominion Postas saying "South African sports minister Reverend Makhenkesi (Arnold) Stofile told him at his home last year he had been nominated for the award." Oh so no letter John? No written evidence? Funny that. Given this is a man who once said the death of the Kahui twins was "society's" fault, it's no surprise that he has his own portable reality generator. I guess a journalist will now interview the South African sports minister ... his contact details are here.

Sort out your own stables first

A few people around the traps have been talking these last few days about 'pop econ' books like Steven Leavitt's 'Freakonomics' and Tim Harford's 'Underground Economist' that purport to take economic reasoning from the arid realms of economic analysis and apply it to everything from the use of toilet paper to the impact of abortion on inner city crime.

For all the pleasure to be had in reading them, and the huge sales of these books show how much fun there is in them, wouldn't it be better if instead of applying economic reasoning to other people's fields, these economists first sort out their own?

When most economists miss such an obvious blunder, when they struggle to understand the very basics of their own profession -- including where money comes from and what causes recessions and inflation and even how to properly define them -- it's clear the economists' own stables still need seriously mucking out. Until that's done, (if I may mix a metaphor) perhaps they'd better stick to their knitting instead of advising on it.

UPDATE: Here's an example: while 'mainstream' economists write 'pop econ' books and promote the need to for 'fiscal stimulus' -- in other words, more easy credit to mop up the problems caused the earlier wads of easy credit -- the more sensible chaps have asked themselves a few serious questions, and formed a Coalition against Fiscal Stimulus [hat tip Paul Walker].

Plan Red for youngsters

This year's early political football is shaping up to be sixteen to eighteen year olds. Problems with literacy, numeracy and youth crime have become so obvious even the politicians can't ignore them. They labour, however, under the delusion they can fix them. Both red team and blue team have a plan, one they hope will cement their place on the treasury benches, whatever its effect on the young people they're purporting to help.

Weaning young NZers off their cradle-to-grave welfare expectations is far more important than any other 'lesson' dreamed up just to capture election-year headlines. And what headlines. At a time in youngsters' lives when the most important lesson they can learn is independence, John Key's 'Plan Blue' is for the state to either coddle them or shackle them -- or have them sent to boot camp. Helen Clark has just announced her own response this morning, which in all respects is even worse. Plan Red is this: no-one under voting age should be allowed out to work.

It beggars belief. Each election is an advanced auction of stolen goods. This election, they're coming for your children.

Gates and the wealth of nations

The world's richest man, Bill Gates, has been disgracing himself at the World Economic Forum in Davos by calling on Western nations to adopt a new, “creative capitalism.” Notes Alex Epstein at the Ayn Rand Institute, Gates complained that

under “pure capitalism . . . . the great advances in the world have often aggravated the inequities in the world. The least needy see the most improvement, and the most needy see the least . . .” Gates called for corporations and governments to devote far more time and money “doing work that eases the world's inequities.”

The West did not become wealthy at the Third World’s expense--we did not seize computers, houses, pharmaceuticals, and railroads from the Sahara. We created our wealth under capitalism, the system that liberates individuals to produce and trade without interference. And Third World countries could do the same if they adopted that system.

“The last 200 years have shown that wherever capitalism is adopted--from Singapore to the United States to Hong Kong to Australia--it enables its citizens to create wealth and prosper. Yet not one word of Gates’s speech calls for poor countries to change their anti-capitalist governments.

“No matter how many billions Bill Gates gives to poor nations, until he starts advocating universal capitalism instead of attacking it, he is acting as an enemy of prosperity in the undeveloped world.”

On voting

The notion that one must vote for someone, anyone, just to vote, never mind that everyone running advocates bad ideas, bad policies, is completely off the wall. That really amounts to throwing away one’s vote--a kind of electoral littering. Better to wait for a time when perhaps some sensible people, with sensible ideas, become candidates.

Tuesday, January 29, 2008

No answer

John Key's speech-writers had nine questions for Helen Clark:

• Why, after eight years of Labour, are we paying the second-highest interest rates in the developed world? • Why, under Labour, is the gap between our wages, and wages in Australia and other parts of the world, getting bigger and bigger? • Why, under Labour, do we get a tax cut only in election year, when we really needed it years ago? • Why are grocery and petrol prices going through the roof? • Why can't our hardworking kids afford to buy their own house? • Why is one in five Kiwi kids leaving school with grossly inadequate literacy and numeracy skills? • Why, when Labour claim they aspire to be carbon-neutral, do our greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise at an alarming rate? • Why hasn't the health system improved when billions of extra dollars have been poured into it? • Why is violent crime against innocent New Zealanders continuing to soar and why is Labour unable to do anything about it?

Unfortunately, neither the speech-writers nor John Key's policy-writers have virtually any answer to the obvious follow-up question: "What the hell would National do about any or all of these nine?" The answer to most of them still seems to be either "Beats the hell out of me," or, "Much the same as Labour."

UPDATE: The Hive claims there was plenty of detail, all of which they liked. I'd suggest however that the liberal use of phrases like "focus on," "more careful with" and "unrelenting in our quest" speak less of detail than they do of wishful thinking. Every government since Jenny Shipley's has promised for example to "reduce the burden of compliance and bureaucracy." Not one has yet managed it. Key offers no details of how his government would be any different. Like all such promises have proved to be, John Key's promise is all sizzle, no sausage.

Voucher schmoucher

Is John Key’s voucher plan for 16 & 17 year old school leavers nothing more than changing the nature of the handout slightly?

No matter how you try to spin it, a voucher for polytechnic training is still a handout.

What we really should be worrying about is how to wean people of the welfare cradle-to-grave expectations many New Zealanders have of the government.

Too true. Weaning young NZers off their cradle-to-grave welfare expectations is far more important than the details of a new handout with the designed life-span of one election year.

Frankly, a partial redesign of the handout system is far less important than cracking the culture of entitlement which young NZers imbibe in Nanny's indoctrination centres, and which a new handout will do nothing to cure.

And don't forget that it's the existing tertiary education funding system, that's a voucher system in all but name (a system introduced by the previous National Government), that delivered such delights as Rongo Wetere's outstanding salary, and tales of profligacy and nepotism, of first class air travel, million dollar contracts to family members, and money wasted on failed IT projects

The idea of school vouchers is popular (not least with the purveyors of twilight golf and the owners of Wananga o Aoteaora). Vouchers do purchase wider choice, it’s true, but only at the expense of either bringing private schools even more under the Ministry’s boot (as a once relatively free early childhood sector now understands), or of throwing the taxpayer’s money away on bullshit. Key's advisors think they can achieve the latter by insisting on the former, which does nothing to wean anyone off anything, and will deliver even Ministry goons even more power over educationalists and young NZers.

Fact is, as long as state and school remain unseparated and youngsters consider themselves entitled to your cash, we may continue getting the various dogs' breakfasts that we keep being served up and to have inflicted upon us the smart-arse youngsters who think people other than their parents owe them a living; as long as it's assumed young people are the responsibility of the state, they'll keep thinking the whole world owes them a living, and they'll keep stamping their feet until they do so. And now!

Already, more young NZers have gone to more tertiary institutions than perhaps at any time in this country's short history, yet fewer and fewer of them are educated. This is not an accident. Like the Soviets producing tractors, there are lots of figures showing an awful lot of production, but none of the tractors work. Meanwhile the number of people who can actually think on their feet -- actually do things -- is surely be at an all-time low.

The most important lesson for a sixteen- to seventeen-year old is independence, not entitlement. John Key's vouchers are not the lesson they need.

Another murderer dead

Goodbye and good riddance to former Indonesian president Suharto, who seized power from the dictator Sukarno before embarking on his own career of repression. Another dead dictator for whom one almost wishes the idea of hell had some meaning. Chris Rossdale for one is enraged at the soft-soaping done by the official obituaries such as this obscene apologia from the BBC of a man in the top twenty of the last century's murderers. Says Chris:

You wouldn’t expect an article on Hitler, or Stalin, or Saddam Hussein, to start off by talking about his good economic record, and then mention ‘human rights abuses’. It would start by rightly condemning them as mass murderers. Suharto is a mass murderer, who killed somewhere between 700,000 and 1,000,000 people. The fact that he did most of this with Western support is to our shame, that it is not regarded as one of the worst atrocities of the post WW2 era is embarrassing.

I don’t imagine many readers will be shedding tears at the death of former Indonesian dictator Suharto, and certainly I won’t be. The bloody massacres in which he rode to power amid the collapse of the Sukarno regime, and the brutal invasion and occupation of East Timor, not to mention his spectacular corruption, mark him down among the worst political criminals of a terrible century, and have coloured Australian attitudes to Indonesia in the decade since his fall from power.

Now that he’s gone, I hope Australians will begin to recognise the immense progress Indonesia has made against daunting odds...

UPDATE 1: DPF notes the irony of former free speech advocate Idiot/Savant, who blogs anonymously, arguing that Moore should not be able to advocate against the Government without listing his name and address...

Random violence. No single trend or factor. Just a brutal start to a new year. Here in New Zealand we like to think we're immune from the violence that all too frequently sweeps the world, but our 'quarter-acre pavlova paradise' sometimes seems more like Hell's half-acre.

With a new outrage almost every day, picking up the newspaper each morning is becoming an act of courage.

It is impossible not to contemplate the questions the slaughter raises: What kind of world - what kind of a country - is it in which these things can be done to other human beings: a child's life snuffed out by his parents; a graduate with her life before her murdered by ex-boyfriend; a bubbly young girl seeing the world is slaughtered by a young boy; another young boy killed for tagging a fence in Manurewa; and another young Manurewa boy killed in his parent's dairy ...

“We pay tax and what do we get?” says dairy owner Anand. “We’re trying to work hard. We try to make an honest living.” Not so the brutes, who end the lives of other human beings for nothing much more than the 'kicks' it gives them.

What kind of bloody place is this where such unthinking, mindless brutes exist that can do such things to other people? What use is it -- we might ask ourselves -- to proselytise, to persuade and to philosophise when the newspaper is full of new atrocities every time we pick it up? What use is philosophy and reason when brainless brutality seems the order of the day?

Bertrand Russell once observed that "many people would sooner die rather than think - in fact, they do so." If only, we lament, it were only the wilfully mindless who were dying! But it's not - these bastards are taking others with them before they go.

'What refuge is there from this noxious tide of irrational brutality?' I wondered as I drove into town this morning helping a client set up a new business. As I drove I watched thousands of other good people going purposefully about their business - carrying out their plans, making deals, and enjoying the adventure of life in a teeming city. And as I drove, I realised that - despite the headlines - these senseless killings are still the exception rather than the rule. The slayings are still news precisely because they are not normal everyday events: The norm was here, I realised, right outside my car window, inside my client's new architecturally-designed offices, and in the heaving, pulsating, guffawing city all around me.

I realised the overwhelming majority of people, in this hemisphere at least, are simply going about their daily business - planning, acting and producing wealth and happiness for themselves and for others. The mindless brutes are not all around us; what we see around us instead are people much like ourselves - people whose actions are the exact inverse of the mindless morons - people whose actions are purposefully productive. It is such actions that move the world, not the actions of a few mindless thugs, however brutal.

Those of us who do value reason and happiness will often become frustrated by the mindlessness around us - particularly when violent mindlessness is inundating the news we see. But the fact remains that, in the western world at least, the violently mindless are still very much in the minority.

The meek will probably never get the chance to inherit the earth, and nor perhaps will the brutes: We will - those of us who do choose to think, and to act, and to guffaw. But some days it still seems like we'll have to fight the brutes for it all the way.

Cue Card Libertarianism: Education

Each 'Cue Card Libertarianism' entry forms part of a series intended to introduce newbies to the terms used (or as used) by local libertarians. The series so far can be found archived here, and here, and the Introduction here.

“A tax-supported, compulsory educational system is the complete model of the totalitarian state.”

– Isabel Paterson, 'The God of the Machine.'

EDUCATION: The system of compulsory, taxpayer-funded education is another prime example of the state performing the opposite role to its proper one, i.e. initiating force against its citizens, rather than protecting them from it.

It forces children from their parents; it forces a curriculum on children with or without the parents’ approval; it treats the child’s mind as the property of the state; it forces people to pay for the education of other people’s children.

New Zealand’s public education has followed in the path of the United States: beginning with educating children to submit to the collective feelings of the group, rather than to develop their own minds ands use their own independent judgement – i.e. it teaches them to value 'consensus' before truth, and 'fitting in' above facts.

Peer pressure and politics are now important than good pedagogy. “Humanities” subjects have been hi-jacked by the purveyors of fashionable political viewpoints, and even the sciences have been infected with irrational nature-worship and notions like "Maori Science," ie., myth. A recent Minister of Education even claimed that science is not even concerned with the discovery of truth.

The travesty of education being perpetrated by the state currently is nothing short of criminal. Taxpayers paying more and more to get less and less -- more money spent, to fill the heads of more and more young New Zealanders with mush.

The 'liberal' view is that all that is wrong with state education can be fixed with more money, better staff-student ratios, greater control of curriculum, more qualified teachers and more paperwork. But as more and more money spent on education has shown that more of the same just produces more and more failure. The view of conservatives is generally that public education needs to be made more efficient. With more efficiency, they say, 'delivery' of education will be better.

Libertarians however maintain that public education is all too efficient: it has been ruthlessly efficient at delivering the government’s chosen values. After generations of indoctrination at the knee of the state we now have several generations who are 'culturally safe' and politically correct -- ‘good citizens’ unable to use the brains they were born with, unthinkingly compliant in every respect with the values in which they've been totally immersed; braindead automatons to whom group-think is good and for forty-two percent of whom the reading of a bus timetable or the operation of a simple appliance is beyond them.

In previous decades the government's chosen values included banning the speaking of Maori in schools; speaking Maori in schools is fast becoming compulsory, along with the teaching of the ordained versions of Te Tiriti and the inculcation of the ideas of multiculturalism and the inferiority of western culture. Governments and their values change, but their use of their factory schools for indoctination doesn't.

The government's recently chosen values are "fairness, opportunity and security." We know that because Helen Clark said so. Orwell would have recognised these words, as he might the rigid orthodoxies of what passes for teacher training. "What happens in our schools is a very big part of shaping the future of New Zealand," says Ms Clark in the same speech, acknowledging that this is the way to make subjects out of citizens. Libertarians agree with Ms Clark's statement, which is precisely why we want governments away from the schools and away from control of curricula. Both Liberals and conservatives endorse state control of schools and of curricula, and they both seek to be the state. Libertarians don't.

Rather than delivering new generations of New Zealand's children to be indoctrinated into servitude and their heads filled with mush, it's time for a radical rethink and a wholesale rejection of NZ's educational establishment -- of those who've sucked up the money, and produced only failure. It's time for a permanent and constituional separation of school and state, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of church and state.

Even the critics of state education, however, cannot imagine life without it, simply because they’ve never known anything else. They would have the same difficulty grasping the possibility of removing the state from the production of clothing if, all their lives, the state had exercised a coercive monopoly in that field.

Libertarianism holds that the removal of the state from education is a reform needed more urgently than most; and that all education should be private, non-compulsory, and paid for by the parents whose children are receiving it.

This is part of a continuing series explaining the concepts and terms used by New Zealand libertarians, originally published in The Free Radical in 1993. The 'Introduction' to the series is here.

Too few busybodies

Some good news and some bad news this morning about the rise and rise of busybodying. Lincoln University's Environment Society and Design Division head, Stephanie Rixecker says there is a growing demand for "environmental planners" -- that's the bad news -- but admits there is a lack of students keen to become such busybodies. Ms Rixecker blames "bad publicity and issues surrounding the Resource Management Act" for this lack of enthusiasm.

Excellent. While the current legal environment still demands more planning busybodies, it looks like the culture is changing, and careers like these are being looked at with increasing revulsion. Excellent.

Money: "Pathology & reality"

Recent daily articles on Mises.org have addressed the economic downturn, and the unbearably bad response from Washington and the Fed [and the world's central banks]. These people have learned all the wrong lessons from the Great Depression. There is nothing that the planners won't consider at this point: wage and price controls, floods of new money, exchange controls, protectionism, hundreds of billions in public works – you name it. The good news is that all the literature necessary to combat this nonsense is in print. The Austrian perspective is there to make sense of the current economic mess.

Visit the Mises Store to find all the literature that's fit to buy on the crisis that could define the next few years...

Tip Jar

In America, they tip. In NZ, we shout beer. If you like the service here at Not PC, drop a tip in the tip jar and you can do both.

Recent
Comments

Beer O'Clock: Bill Shakespeare & beer
Shortage, thy name is socialism
Perhaps you'd be a lot less frustrated is you realise that

1. People do not want smaller govt - they want more efficient govt.

2. Nobody actually cares about really cutting government spending. What taxpayers want is for government spending to be cut on those programmes that are of no benefit to themselves.

That's the reality of the matter. JK knows it, which is one of the reasons he is doing so well.
Peter - I'm gobsmacked by the link to UnityAotearoa - I never knew there was such a hardline socialist unit in NZ. What a bunch of sad losers. Cheers, Elliot.What taxpayers want is for government spending to be cut on those programmes that are of no benefit to themselves.

That isn't true at all. Voters do not vote in their self interest. They vote their values, very often in spite of their interests. Any given taxpayer probably uses only a tiny fraction of government services, but that doesn't mean they vote for less government.

See "The Myth of the Rational Voter"Meanwhile, you lot just sit back and vote for more of the same, and nod sagely as you say "that's all one can really do, you know." You make me sick.

That is exactly how I feel. Hearing Key announce his loan repayment incentive, which just adds more bureaucracy to what is already an enormous load of it, and knowing that is what wins votes in NZ made me realise I am surrounded by people who think that kind of open bribery using other people's money is not only acceptable but desirable.

I am genuinely sad to live in this country some days and that was one of them.
Sometimes I wish our government were more like Dubai. They actualy GIVE money to their citizens.
Ah...PC ever the consummate political animal. "You make me sick" (because you don't vote for my party of choice), that will get em!

Your just as dishonest as the rest, if the libertarians had any real nads they would change the name of the party to the 'objectivist party' as that is what it actually is, when Perigo had Darnton on the radio they never went near any of the more 'out there' libertarian policies, just more snappy catch phases and back slapping bullshit.
Nonsense Matt B. Voters vote in their rational self-interest, whatever they perceive that to be. Do not expect anyone to vote otherwise.

Bearing that in mind, the idea of smaller govt is probably more unpopular now than it has EVER been.

Craig - if Libz would call themselves 'The Objectivist Party' they would do a lot better IMO. Doing a political clifftop tango with the proto-fascist right - as evidenced by the comments in the tagger thread, not to mention religion and abortion, has been very detrimental.

Constantly trying to nip the hindquarters of John Key doesn't help much either.
"Constantly trying to nip the hindquarters of John Key doesn't help much either."

Doesn't help who exactly? You? The national socialist workers farmer party?

What makes you think that it matters whether the fuhrer is Key or Clark or some other flunctionary? They do the same things. They lead to the same results.

Reckon you an' Craig should start a family... or perhaps not; that would be inbreeding.

LGM
I like "flunctionary" LGM--mind if I borrow it?
KG

Sure. You're welcome to.

What are you going to write?

LGM
I thought perhaps a glossary of terms for the many and varied forms of bureaucrats and flunkeys we're saddled with, lgm.
KG

A good idea. Let me know when you post it!

LGM
Dullards behind blackouts ahead
If we want more 'green' power we need to build more dams or go nuclear.

Those are the only two choices.
5.5 kVa generators which are appropriate for emergency domestic use are quite cheap at the moment...
...to complete the third-world look find a local petrol line, hack it open with an axe or better yet a rock, and collect the fuel to run your generator...
If you think NZ has a "third world" power system you need to look at some of the major incidents in the US, Aus and Western Europe. We are basically on a par. Look at South Africa or the Pacific for a 3rd World power system.

Brian Leyland has been crying blackout for quite a while, but it has not happened. so don't take them at face value. I think his solution is to massively overinvest in grid capability that may never be used, which is inefficient.

The problem with these kind of 'we're all doomed' prophecies is that the people making them are not held to account for the anxiety they cause when wrong. (that said I know Brian is genuine in his views and a very nice guy).

The energy industry is mired in politics and Brian is deeply opposed to energy policy. That has got to influence his perceptions of the depth of 'crisis'. Usually at this time of year it is the power companies talking up the risks and pocketing the resulting high prices.

The reality is teh system is coping despite all the big issues that have been chucked at it in the last few months.

Ironically today Genesis announced they aer going to push ahead with their Rodney gas power station. They are trying to make an end run around the NZES by calling it a "peaking" station rather than a baseload (even though it is over 400mw!). Great timing though, and maybe a 2 fingered salute from their outgoing CEO to Parker, but there;s no way Parker could beat them up about it given the headlines this week.

Insider
makes Britain seem rational. The Brown administration announced a month or so ago that it would support more nuclear, and that coal/gas plants would be needed in the meantime because alternatives to both simply aren't viable on a large enough scale - and the economy needs it. This is from a country that worships climate change.
anon.

Thanks for the interesting post.
I believe Genesis gained some confidence from my widespread reporting of the fact that their proposed combined cycle gas powered plant would actually produce less carbon dioxide pre Kwh than the Ngawha plant which is blessed because geothermal power is renewable – even if it is nuclear.

Rodney council has certainly picked up the idea and is pushing ahead with the necessary zoning.
I believe Genesis gained some confidence from my widespread reporting of the fact that their proposed combined cycle gas powered plant would actually produce less carbon dioxide pre Kwh than the Ngawha plant which is blessed because geothermal power is renewable – even if it is nuclear.

Rodney council has certainly picked up the idea and is pushing ahead with the necessary zoning.
Let's hope they send you a healthy consultant's cheque Owen.

Note that there were no power cuts over the weekend despite Brian's warnings

Insider.
Decouple is the key phrase: why let addled socialists control your power supply? Thin-film solar (try nanosolar for a taste of what's a'comin'), and similar techniques for distributed generation cut the present Gordian knot: too much demand, not enough supply, and no way to easily build more centralised stuff. There's a good wiki over at PESWiki. Don't moan. Think first, then act!
Nothing to see ... no principles, no ideas ... (updated)
How about National sell all out-standing loans along with the Universities, abolish the student loan system and the student allowance and make University tuition fully private.

As someone with a student loan, I'd rather deal with a private company seeking to have me repay the loan without being bankrupted as opposed to the IRD whose only negotiating position thus far has been: pay it back in five years or else.

Me: Um that's $25,000 p/a or 1/2 of my current salary.

Them: We don't care. Do it or the minute you return to NZ we'll get you.

Seriously, I don't think these morons actually WANT the student debt repaid.
Which is to say that they are considering their negotiating tactics...

I fully intend to pay back the loan, but I had a time figure of between 20-25 years in mind... You know, normal loan repayment schemes.

I don't expect any response soon. The IRD aren't in any hurry you see. It took them five years to find out I was gone. Turns out they lost the notification I set them when I decided to go OS.
If you returned to New Zealand the repayment schedule would be in the 20 - 25 year timeframe.

To have left the country for a salary of $50,000..(something I consider a pittance)..seems a bit odd.

Had you not blindly done as you were told by the State and gone to school, sat up straight, sat exams, gone to University, signed "here, here and here", incurred your debt, gone overseas, told the IRD you were leaving (like a good little boy) so they can keep tabs on you...things would be different.

Seems a bit late now to suddenly have a beef with the State.
Why did I leave? What can I say, I had an opportunity that looked good. It fell on it's arse and now I'm rebuilding.

Beef with the State?

Nope. Just a beef with their negotiating tactics. Threatening to break the debtors legs unless they pay you back at a rate he can't afford doesn't leave him with many options now does it?

That was their opening gambit.

Better would have been to give me the same terms I'd have gotten back in NZ. I'm sure we'll get to that point, but in the mean time they are wasting their time. Which is fine, because I'm not a NZ taxpayer -- they are wasting your dime not mine.

You guys should be the ones with the beef.

Then again, if the government sold the debt to some international organization with the ability to operate overseas (at the moment I can only pay the IRD back by setting up a bank account in NZ and eating the wire-transfer costs), the NZ taxpayer - ie you - would be better off...

That $7b millstone paid back for a start, and this issue removed as a potential election bribe to 500,000 of the voters in NZ...

But hey, Your problem not mine. I'm outta there.
Actually it IS your problem. You RECEIVED the money. They want it back. Eventually, when they decide to get tough, they'll extradite. There are tax treaties with a number of countries around the World. they'll get you eventually.
No tax treaties with NZ where I am. No means of extradition. Try again.

As I say, if that's their final negotiating position -- they won't get a cent. I can't give them what I don't have.

Therein lies the problem.

Not only is the government lending money to people who can't pay it back. But are trying to bankrupt/arrest or otherwise fuck up people who can pay it back if they are given a NORMAL amount of time to do so.

Hence my question. Do these guys actually want the money back or not?

Why isn't anyone here seriously contemplating my suggestion that the loan be sold to a private firm?

Why? Is the thought of getting your tax money back evil to you?

Or is it that you'd rather have the satisfaction of seeing the IRD crush a rogue student debtor.
Anonymous..are you trying to say you are stuck in some 3rd World hell hole all for the sake of some silly student loan?!?! ..(are you crazy??)

Or are you in Dubai, living in an Islamic Police State?

As I said earlier, and you may not fully realise this...if you return to NZ all you are required to pay is 10cents in the dollar of your income above a threshold.

If you are back here no one will 'chase you' or cause any problems.

(It is amazing the number of people who do not realise this)
Elijah,

I believe that the IRD can't get student loan repayments out of anyone except those in australia & new zealand.

Note absolutely sure, but I do know from friends for example, that child support against a salary earned in the UK is "voluntary".
Student Debtor

We printed out what you just wrote and gave it the supervisor. He said it will be easy enough to find the case file that matches up to your profile. You have given enough away to make a match. Count on being caught out one way or another.
Oh please...lol
Hahahaha

Best laugh I've had all week. If you are indeed a Taxman, maybe you'd be better served getting your Student Loan agents to get off their arses and make an effort at a civil and sensible negotiation rather than trying to intimidate me from a position of no leverage.

And because you won't be able to find my case, you'll just have to be nice to every overseas student with a loan won't you. And pigs might fly.
Second Jacobs House - Frank Lloyd Wright
Ohhh - I want this one!
Paying no-hopers to breed produces ....
PC, I didn't agree with you on the state's involvment in education a couple of threads back.... but I have to say I totally agree with you on this one. The state has indeed been paying no-hopers to breed for years and the results have been catastrophic.

In my view, all DPB should be scrapped. it would not be humane or possible to cut people off like switching off a tap, so the state should give, say, a grace period of 18 months, after which there will be NO more new DPBs paid at all. This should be followed up with a five to seven year period of scaled reductions of existing payments culminating in the absolute abolition of the DPB as we know it. These changes should be very thoroughly publicised so that even the dumbest of our bottom-feeders can understand the consequences of continuing to behave irresponsibly.

Widow(er)s who are solely caring for their child(ren) should be exempt, as long as the other parent was living with the surviving spouse at the time of their death.
WELL NO FUCKEN SHIT.!!!

WHAT ARE YOU ALL DOING ABOUT IT .
There is no need for swearing, Mr Mef***ya...using swear words is rather ignorant and 'Non U'
well, gosh, mefuckya, that contributed a whole lot to the debate. I'm so glad to hear from a person of your obvious erudition and insight.

Thank you for your sharing.
I guess we just heard from one of the products of the failed DPB system, eh?
KG

Actually, he's a product of the NZ state compulsory, state-run education system. Take a look at what he wrote. It's a barely articulate outpouring of frustrated anger. He's annoyed at the content of your posts but he has nothing to contribute (no argument, no opinion, no thought) and can't express himself logicaly (he only has his emotion). Such a person is likely to be moody and violent. Quite irrational.

Consider, he's had over a decade of "education". The outpouring above is as good as it gets for him.

---

As far as the DPB is concerned, the whole thing should be ceased immediately. It relies on theft for funding, so halt and desist with the theft. You do not stop a criminal by letting him continue to steal over years and years. Same deal here. Immediate cessation.

LGM
"The outpouring above is as good as it gets for him."Which is pretty damn sad,lgm. I've been trying to find some information on the effect of vocabulary on thought, because surely kids leaving school with very limited means to express themselves must as a result have very limited thought processes?If you have any idea of where I ought to be looking, please let me know.All I've found so far is Marxist edubabble.
kg, I'm not sure about facts and figures etc in the way of formal research results.... but I remember hearing an ex-senior prison officer on radio a year or so back who had some revealing information to impart.

He said that a huge proportion of the inmates of Paremoremo (something like 70%) had almost no vocabulary at all. They couldn't read even straightforward sentences and their spoken vocabulary was something like 400 to 500 words in total, of which only about 100 were regularly used.

This meant that their verbal reactions to external stimulii were reduced to a series of simple grunts ("choice man, sux, fuckU, yerr, eh, bro") and they have almost no ability to communicate even the shallowest of intellectual concepts as they have no words to frame their thoughts.

As for written communication, this seems to be entirely out of the question for these people, and so their experience of the world and their interactions with it are reduced almost to that of unsubtle body language and facial expressions only (much like the All Blacks before a match, actually! OMG).

Sorry I couldn't supply stats and links, but I hope this helps.
Illiterates still sadly surging forth. Ambulances positioned firmly at cliff base.
Has the Libertarian approach actually been tried anywhere? If not, what makes you think it will work, if so please point me at the evidence of raging success.
It’s not an education issue but a welfare issue. As a generalization students attending decile 4 or higher schools are fine. Students attending decile 3 or below tend to belong to families on welfare and the kiddies move around a lot. As a result they are unsettled, moving from school to school and don’t get the basic education required at ages 5 to 7.
This is why I worked 2 - 3 jobs and got into investing. So I can put my kids through a decent private education. I have two kids at Anglican Diocean Schools even though I am an atheist. They get Damned good educations. There will be a meritocracy in this country in the not to distant future. A small number of people with knowledge and skills, and a huge mass of proles, good for nothing pretty much at all.

Brian Smaller
Simon said...It’s not an education issue but a welfare issue.

I think that I agree with Simon here. Speaking from experience, the secondary school in Tonga that I went to, is no where near the quality of educations that we have here in NZ. The resources are awful as it is still today. The majority of teachers don't have degrees. There is a local teacher's training college over there, where the majority of local teachers got their training from there. The qualifications gained from there are not degrees but certificates. But I have to say, that literacy & numeracy are reasonable over there as according to UN standards (people with degrees/per population-wise).

Since it is a 3rd world country and no welfare at all, children are hungry for success at school out of sheer desperation to do well, since if you're no good, then the most options for males is to do farm work in their land. Farm work is not a nice thing to do in the eyes of children, because it is so bloody hard and physical. Most horticultural farmers, have no machineries at all to ease their work. Just pure manual, hoeing and digging with spades is the norm, when you grow taro, cassava or yams, etc... You get blisters everyday in your palms for these sort of manual work. For girls that don't do well, they join their mums and other women community groups (villagers) to do weaving and making handicrafts for sales (mostly in the tourism industry). Again, this is bloody hard work, since everything is manual (although, women don't get continual blistering on their hands like the farm men do).

The desire to succeed at school thus to avoid manual labouring in the farm as the way to earn a living drive kids to try harder at school. If you don't drive hard at school , the alternative is blistering palms everyday.

I suspect that if Tonga has a welfare system, then most kids wouldn't care if they succeed at school or not, since the third alternative is to go on the dole and not get blistering palms. So, I believe that the welfare rather than education is the problem, because the worst school in NZ (bad decile) could be regarded as a top school in Tonga (in comparison). See, Hilary College in Otara could be viewed as a Kings College in Tonga compared to the best school there (Tonga).

Some kids here in NZ just lost the drive to do well at school, since they know that the state would simply support them.
These statistics are just shocking and further evidence the socialist education system is a failure.

All the working class people should be ashamed of themselves, and this rather proves the point as to why for centuries education and success was reserved for rich people and the 'elite'.

As soon as egalitarianism took over it has proved the working class people are too stupid to benefit to any degree, no matter how many schools there are, no matter how much money is spent.

(I wonder what the illiteracy rate is at elitist private schools?)
Seth Peterson Cottage - Frank Lloyd Wright (updated)
Ahhhh...to be that creative at the age of 90
This is just wonderful--a place to live in and love. :-)
Nice photos of an absolutely magical space in a beautiful place.

FYI, FLW fans can also stay overnight in the Inn at Price Tower in Bartlesville,OK, and at the recently opened Duncan residence in Acme, PA.
Thanks anonymous. :-)
NOT in support of murder
Just back from second holiday this morning, and found the comments written in the other section abhorrent. I heard about this incident and I really, really hope that there is more to this than what has already come out in the media.

Elijah Lineberry is also lucky that the comments function on his blog doesn't work, as well... Some so-called libertarians appear to apply a fairly paper-thin moral test in justifying the taking of another's life.

DenMT
Den,

I see what you mean - the following are Elijah's comments on the tagger-knifing:

Is sticking a knife into a feral teenage graffiti artist damaging other people's property such a bad thing? ..(some may see it as doing God's work) ... I do hope I am on the Jury of the brave, gallant businessman accused of murder...

I used to think Elijah was simply a racist prick; now I start to wonder if he's a sociopath too. He's certainly not a libertarian.

As for there being more to the story ... the only thing that would justify a knifing would be:

That would be justified ... but from the admittedly limited reports so far, I don't think that's what happened.
Let's not make psychiatric diagnoses without even the benefit of either a consultation or a qualification, Duncan.
Fair enough PC, that was over the top - I retract that allegation. He's still a prick though.
No I am not in support of murder, and you don't know the facts of the case either.

Was it self-defence?

Who had the knife?

But if he did kill the kid then he should get life in prison.
If justice could be done and be seen to be done then this killing may never have happened. The homeowner may have felt it was useless to call the police as there is no punishment for tagging. The police would probably not even turn up. Consequently he took the matter into his own hands, which he was clearly not qualified or trained to do and the result was punishment out of all proportion to the crime committed.

Property crimes were once considered to be grievous offences back in the days of the British Empire and now we can see why. Leaving petty crimes to fester will only lead to chaos with no respect anywhere for property or lives and people will be at each others throats in no time.

I was wondering Denmt if you thought my comment was abhorrent in the previous thread as I too "hope that there is more to this than what has already come out in the media."
Yes, you're right Mark. I don't have the facts either -- that's what the courts are for.

I guess I'm reacting to the fact as it stands that people are willing to support a murderer based on facts that as far as they're concerned show he is a murderer.

It may turn out he isn't a murderer, and by all means put me in the box of those who "hope that there is more to this than what has already come out in the media," but the supporters of murder are offering support based not on what they hope happened - not on the expectation of any possible mitigation for murder -- but on what has already been reported, which isn't pretty.
Well, I stand by my comment on the previous thread.

Graffiti is a persistant problem, not just for property owners, but also for the thousands of public parks, buildings, fences etc that are regularly and repeatedly vandalised.

In this way, living in a graffiti-filled environment affects the wellbeing and emotional health of the whole population that is constantly exposed to it. What is more, removing it does nothing to solve the problem, even short-term, because the empty space is often filled yet again by the next daybreak.

There are areas of Auckland that resemble downtown L.A. and these filty zones are creeping and growing across our city like a cancer.

Graffiti sends a strong "fuck you" message to society and it is absolutely ridiculous that a huge majority of ordinary law-abiding people should be cowering in their homes powerless to stop it. It is also an utter insult that our so-called 'police' force couldn't give a rat's arse and instead elect to hassle people going about their lawful business on our roads rather than do the job for which they are paid - stopping crime.

Finally, with this act of defense, it seems that the public are starting to send the message that they are no longer prepared to lamely sit by and be shat on.

More of these animals should be killed, if thats what it takes to get the message across. At the very least, pour encourager les autres.

This incident has been very timely. Hopefully it will act as a wake up call to the shites and the lazy police force who up to now couldn't give a shit.
Duncan, as a word to the wise...it is best to actually meet someone in person, first, before drawing conclusions about them.

That is what the 'Adults' do :)The police would probably not even turn up.

That's true. The police would turn up in numbers immediately if you flick your son's ear. The police got their priorities fucked up.
It may be that a young man has been stabbed for tagging and if so that's one hell of a price to pay.On the other hand, ordinary citizens are being assaulted and killed while going about their lawful business, because the thugs have grown used to a consequence-free environment.And that's a hell of a price for innocent people to pay.
I've been thinking about this a lot today.How many people realize just what a state of siege citizens live under these days? Where I live, it's not safe to go to bed and leave windows open, not safe to walk around town alone at night, very unsafe to step outside my place of work at night when there are groups of 14-16 gathered, drinking and smoking weed.If a carload of youths carve you up on the road, the wisest course of action is to just suck it up, because any display of anger will invite retaliation.I'm bloody sick of it--people ought to be free to go about their lawful business without having to tailor their lives to suit the thugs.So, somebody gets himself killed for tagging--there's a simple answer to that: leave other people's fucking property alone!Work half a lifetime and get your own and then deface it to your heart's content.
I for one am happy this little prick is dead. One less dole that we have to pay out. This nihilist's life was worth less than nothing. We should send a message to a few more of these sub-human pieces of slime, that we will not be bullied!
KG

If a person wrecks my property what he has done is negate that time and effort I took to acquire the property. In effect he has destroyed that time of my life that is invested in that property.

Aside from this he is saying, "stuff you, I can destroy you as I like, I can destroy that which you value."

Interestingly this is exactly what other forms of force initiation and expropriation do as well. Taxation anyone?

How do you think such people should be treated?

BTW, if a man comes into Bruce's house with a weapon and says he does not intend to kill Bruce, only cut off one of Bruce's arms, is Bruce right to kill him?

What about if it's only an ear he's after?

Or Bruce's pinkey?

Or he just wants to wreck Bruce's life with threats and fear? What then?

LGM
Seems plenty think Saudi Arabian justice has a lot going for it.

Of course if it was their kid killed then I'm sure they'd feel the same way. It is one thing to acknowledge and recognise that there is an appalling culture of disrespect and law and order system that is limp wristed in many cases, it is another to say it's ok for grossly disproportionate responses to offences.
Err..lgm, apparently I didn't make myself clear. (nothing new there)I agree with what you're saying.
Libertyscott, the problem is with grossly disproportionate response to offences, all right.Where little creeps can maim somebody and spend at most a few years in the holiday camps, where thugs can utterly destroy whole familie's lives and walk away with a slap on the wrist..When the judicial system lets down the public with soft sentences, then eventually the pendulum is going to swing the other way, as people get bloody sick and tired of seeing the quality of life in this country screwed over by a few ferals.Having lived in the Far North for a few years I have a stock answer for those who claim that stories of crime being out of control are exaggerated--go park your nice car overnight in the main street of Kaikohe or Kaitaia and see if it's still there in the morning.It won't be, or at the very least the windows will be smashed and the boot lid levered open and the stereo will be missing. And that's just the tip of a huge iceberg of crime up there.Is this the kind of country Kiwis want, where lowlifes dictate the terms of how we live? because that's the reality in a lot of places.
kg, I don't disagree with your last comment at all. There is a need to adopt zero tolerance to petty crimes, to take a wide range of approaches to addressing this such as:- A points system for offences that beyond a threshold mean long term incarceration, being sequestered from society; - Life meaning life for certain degrees of murder;- Denying state assistance from criminals;- Denying child custody from certain categories of violent and sexual offenders.

However do not let your anger about that, and legitimate demands for reform of the law and order system to justify mob justice.

The appropriate right to self defence and to protect your property is to use force necessary under the circumstances as you perceive them to be. You need to defend this in court of course.

For example, Gay Oakes murdered her violent husband in a cold calculated planned act. While she could have been justified hitting him and retaliating against him when he hit her, murdering him at a time when he was passive was NOT justified.

The natural end of the philosophy expressed here is that if someone takes a chocolate bar from a shop, the shopkeeper can shoot the thief.
KG

I wasn't arguing against you. I was interested in your thoughts on the issue and wanted to take the matter up a little further. I was seeking further comment.

LGMGraffiti sends a strong "fuck you" message to society and it is absolutely ridiculous that a huge majority of ordinary law-abiding people should be cowering in their homes powerless to stop it.

Yes, Dave. Went to see Sweeney Todd on Sunday night, and 'fuck you' was the message being sent to everyone by the brain-dead cunt who couldn't turn off her cellphone, despite repeated requests to do so.(Particularly annoying if your a Sondheim fan who wants to relish the intricacies of his score and lyrics.)

In fact, I'm semi-permanently pissed off by having my nose rubbed in the presence of trolls in human disguise who seem to think they're the pivot around which the whole damn universe turns.

Unfortunately, the example of the Demon Barber of Fleet Street is a pretty shitty one to follow. And if I have to explain why, you're never going to get it.
Yes, Peter - good post. Your revelation about your own experiences as a 15 year old are sanguine. So when a commenter here says:I for one am happy this little prick is dead. One less dole that we have to pay out. This nihilist's life was worth less than nothing. We should send a message to a few more of these sub-human pieces of slime, that we will not be bullied!- then he could be talking about someone like you. The prejudices are really quite vile.

But you did say it wasn't self defence, and we don't really know that either - the facts - the only one who does is the accused. A lot of heat and no light - very talkback radio.
" then he could be talking about someone like [Peter]"

I simply don't think that's true. People supporting the murder of this young boy are clearly doing so because the boy has a Maori name (Pihema). If the boy was white like Peter (and I know for certain there are white taggers in Auckland) I comfortably predict that NO-ONE would be supporting the murderer or even giving a hint that murdering taggers is OK.

This idiocy is a symptom of the racism that runs in white New Zealand's veins, pure and simple, yet nobody seems to want to mention this ugly fact.
Actually I think the 'support' you see isn't actually in support of murdering the boy. It's the venting of repressed rage at the gradual disintegration of law and order in certain parts of NZ -- caused by the lip service paid to it by National and Labour governments.

When the media get around to actually giving the faceless protagonists in this lamentable affair a human face, then you'll see things calm down.

And those that don't see the reason in PC's argument and still believe that this teen's body on a slab is just revenge for tagging can be legitimately called racist and such. The anonymous poster, for instance, is a likely candidate.

But I'm afraid that unless a government (and I don't care who) actually does something tangible to deal with the elevating rates of ~BOTH~ property crime and crimes against people then this sort of over-the-top response is going to keep happening.

But here's the thing, and there's no getting away from it. This Labour government has retroactively changed laws to avoid culpability in the theft of tax-payers money. They don't seem to have any concept about the principle of law and order nor why it is sacred.

Therefore, expect that the situation will worsen and we will get more of the type of Might-is-right crimes...
In Peter’s day tagging was relatively minor and I notice that he mentions he tagged in “South Auckland”. Nowadays the taggers are penetrating the upmarket central suburbs threatening property values and even defacing people’s luxury speed boats. They also target public utilities like transformers and road signs. I honestly don’t think the anger is particularly racist -it’s more socio-economic. Bands of scoundrels are roaming for miles outside of their squalid zones looking for a showdown. Most Libertarians and other intelligent people pay a fortune with what little is left over after their high salaries and profits have been pilfered by the government to purchase properties far away from these sort of people so that their children can go to nice schools that are tagger free. Schools where learning is cherished in leafy, picturesque and safe streets. We are under tagger assault – what can we do?
Craig

Regarding the cellphone in teh theatre problem.

There are several options for dealing with that one.

In Australia a while back, a guy had a cellphone in the cinema which kept ringing. He kept answering and talking. A member of the audience asked him to either turn it off or leave. When he didn't, the phone was taken from him. The audience member walked out to the cheers of everyone else (except one person). The phone was carefully placed in the gents urinal where it got irrigated. The phone owner was told where the phone was going and the angry man went home after having a good piss. The film was ruined for him anyway I guess, so he must have figured he may as well leave. It was his way of saying, "fuck you too bitch!" Reckon someone learned a lesson that day. The entertainment was partial compensation for the audience. I can't remember what the film was but I remember the incident.

Not everyone has the option to do this sort of thing, so what alternativs are there? Complain to the theatre managment. Ask for your money back so you can come back another day. At the very least the pepetrator will be asked to leave.

I know about people buying an icecream and sticking it in the perpetrator's hair, down their back etc. Then the perpetrator needs to go away for a change of clothes. A jumbo cup of ice and sticky Coca Cola is suited to spilling all over bad people. Then there is always the old favourite of sitting behind the naughty one and clapping both hands hard across their ears, BANG! I understand the effect on the recipient is similar to a concussion grenade and is most disorientating. I've seen that one done twice now and it is pretty effective. It looks very uncomfortable.

The impression I had (certainly in Australia) was that running a cellphone in a theatre was likely to get the phone owner into serious trouble from other audience members. The anger is fast to arrive and physical violence is only moments away.

I don't know about what occurs locally. Perhaps Kiwis are more likely to tolerate poor behaviour in theatres then are the Australians.

---

Graffiti is a problem all over the show. Perhaps if enough of the graffitists end up having really bad things happen to them, the remainder will stop. Property crime of this sort should be severely dealt with; a pity it isn't.

LGM
This bullshit started when the government decided arbitrarily to declare that all youth crimes would be dealt with in a special way with special courts and family conferences and such. - No exceptions allowed.

And that is the problem. Both the National and Labour governments hog tied the judiciary and police this way.

So the answer to the question "How did it come to this" is: You voted for it.
"This idiocy is a symptom of the racism that runs in white New Zealand's veins, pure and simple, yet nobody seems to want to mention this ugly fact."Well, Luke I can't speak for anyone else here, but in my case at least that's utter garbage.I don't give a damn if the perp is purple with green spots because it's the behaviour I object to. And I speak as one who has in the past defended Aborigines (as a witness) in court and worked bloody hard to help them find an outlet for their talents in an effort to keep them out of jail.The racism slur is too easy to drag out--it's lazy, dishonest and pointlessly insulting. Shove it.Robert Winefield hit the nail on the head when he says the comments are the venting of rage against the disintegration of order.
LGM--sorry I misunderstood you.And you can buy cellphone jammers over the 'net...;-)the comments are the venting of rage against the disintegration of order.

The very thing authoritarians fear the most.

Most of you people aren't libertarians, you're authoritarians.Duncan, as a word to the wise...it is best to actually meet someone in person, first, before drawing conclusions about them.

Elijah, this is the blogosphere. Get real.

I don't like your attitude one little bit bro.
luke h, The suggestion that "People supporting the murder of this young boy are clearly doing so because the boy has a Maori name (Pihema)." is absolute bullshit. kg made the very good point that it is the behaviour that people object to, not the race of the vandal.

craig ranapia, your example is, frankly, stupid. One cannot compare forgetfulness and/or lack of awareness with the repeated, openly vandalistic and deliberate attacks on people's and public property. 99% of people who have their cellphone ring in a theatre are embarrassed and squirming when it happens. 99% of taggers are proud of what they do and do it deliberately. Your idiotic illogical argument shows that your thinking processes are flawed. Do you actually have a brain, or are you grasping at straws in your attempt to justify antisocial behaviour?
"Most of you people aren't libertarians, you're authoritarians."Nonsense--has mummy let you play with the box of labels again?No safe and prosperous society is possible without the foundation of order.craig ranapia, your example is, frankly, stupid. One cannot compare forgetfulness and/or lack of awareness with the repeated, openly vandalistic and deliberate attacks on people's and public property.

Sorry, Dave, but right back at ya. I think going through life with a (figurative) middle finger extended to all around you is a pretty clear "'fuck you' signal" (to use your words) that others are utterly unworthy of your consideration and respect. How bloody hard is it to turn off a cellphone for a couple of hours?

And while we're bitching about 'disordered thought processes', I'd apply that label to anyone who so obviously seems to regard a fence as having higher value than a human life. I don't bloody like tagging, or other petty crimes against property any more than I like petty discourtesy. But that's not a justification for murder.
Back in 1987 I got attacked by three 14-15 year olds in the Square in Palmerston North when I was walking hom from work on a mid-summer Friday night (one white boy and two maori boys). One hit me in the head with a small tomohawk and another stabbed my stomach with a screwdriver while the other just punched me. I was lucky and got away with a scratch along my gut, smashed glasses and a grazed head (I managed to throw myself sideways enough to not get the axe embedded in my temple). Those kids got away with virtually no punishment. The sum total of their sentence was restitution for my glasses of which I received $17.53.

Now, I personally would take no chances with a kid of that age on my property who was in the act of either vandalising or robbing it. Having experienced how easy it is to beome a permanent victim, I'd rather be alive in prison than dead on my front lawn.

The guy may have overreacted but until the facts are out I reserve judgement on him. Now I will speculate. Perhaps the kid said "I'll do you" or something along those lines. As far as I am concerned, from experience, I would believe him and act BEOFRE him if I could and take my chances with a jury trial. Like I said, I'd rather my kids visited me in prison than at the cemetary.

Brian Smaller
i definitely know the boy, and as the witness has mentioned to who im not sayng, but he did not even start to tag and did not provoke the murderer to kill, but all he screamed was to let him go. what i cant understand is that pihema is a fast runner, so how can a 50 year old chase an athletic boy? to the point to kill?
craig, I have seldom experienced a more idiotic lack of logic than reading your comparison of graffitiing to cellphone use in theatres. You're off the planet.

Also, its not just the bloody fence that has the value. Its the peace of mind and the feeling of belonging, harmony and safety of everyone who lives in and passes by the area. Twit.
Peter, I'm usually not in agreement with you about a lot of stuff, but that was a good post!
I agree with your comments PC, although I do have difficulty understanding how people can eulogise the child at hand by calling him 'a good normal kid' when clearly he wasn't. He was a vandal, but vandals don't deserve to be murdered. They deserve a good kick up the backside.
Punishment must be in proportion to the crime. Those who say a tagger deserved to be murdered probably support mandatory minimums for drug dealers. These people are no friends of libertarians (who believe in strict enforcement of rights) or anyone who believes in justice. They are unable to see past the crime and look at the motive.They could do with more empathy, because it seems as though they are consumed with rage at the acts these people commit. Calling a human who tags an "animal?" Whats next, political opponents?If we can't even come to the conclusion that this (murdering a tagger) is immoral how are we meant to discuss more complex examples? Its a complete over-reaction on the part of the property owner and no consequentalist nonsense can justify it (e.g. "we are sending a message to taggers"). Sad that such a huge threat can result from Not-PC's OBVIOUS point.Also, its not just the bloody fence that has the value. Its the peace of mind and the feeling of belonging, harmony and safety of everyone who lives in and passes by the area. Twit.

Frankly, Dave, my sense of "belonging, harmony and safety" would be greatly enhanced by knowing that apologists for armed and murderous vigilantes are far, far away from me.

Or to put it in 'logical' term you'd understand: Yo Mama's fat, and you're totally gay.He was a vandal, but vandals don't deserve to be murdered. They deserve a good kick up the backside.- Are you supporting corporal punishment here? Perhaps birching for taggers would be a good punishment.

Punishment must be in proportion to the crime.-Why? Who says so? Are you supporting capital punishment here? Executing murderers would fit this criteria.

No one seems to consider the deterrent aspect of punishment these days.

I think a lot of people first reacted to the news of the killing with some pleasure because of the exasperation they are feeling about the extent of ugly graffiti. Upon reflection they realise it’s a terrible tragedy for all those involved and murder is a ghastly thing. Even Elijah Lineberry has changed his tune. The killer must bitterly regret his actions - who would want to be in his shoes?. Let this be a lesson to all of us not to let anger cloud our judgement.
RW, your first paragraph says it all.

As it happens, this incident occurred the day after my 94 year old grandmother's fence was sprayed; the same mark was also sprayed across the front of the brand new house across the road from her. And when I say brand new, I mean it. The owners haven't even moved in yet. Just lovely.

I detest the term 'tagging'. It's a euphemism for property defacement or even property assault. And 'graffiti artist' is just bullshit.

Some of us respect the notion of property rights & others make excuses for criminal behaviour. Honestly, I could kick that little bastard's ass into the middle of next week for what he did to my Nana.

But this terrible reaction to the Auckland kid's murder (by some) is indeed the result of frustration, helplessness and anger at years of pathetic policymaking from both sides.

You reap what you sow, kids.You reap what you sow, kids.

Tslking about other people's karma is one thing, Sus -- not quite so much fun when it comes around to bit you in the arse. keep that in mind, would you -- because I'd really hate someone to decide your grandmother is a waste of space who'd be vastly improved by a knifing.

If that offends you, Sus, take a deep breath and ask yourself why.
Sometimes violence is necessary to stop criminal acts that individually seem hardly deserving of violence. For instance if vandals attacked your property night after night and all other measures failed. If the murdered boy could be brought back to life yet the price to pay for this miracle was that he tagged your grandmothers house every day until they died then you might not pay that price for his life.This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Whatever Mr Rogerson's real name is, he should consider finding another place to leave his disgusting comments.
It is Roger.

There was nothing obscene or disgusting what I wrote back there. I compared the tagger tagging the house and the old guy tagging the tagger. Both of them leave a mark and damage the property. I asked for return opinion to the idea that the old guy is punished by making him remove his tag by stitching up the tagger's body and washing the body. Then he get a stern warning and go home. If you disagree then say so. Better to explain yourself instead of get angry just because you do it.

Roger and out

Roger
Way too old for offence, Craig. But you've got what I said completely wrong.

I do not believe that boy deserved what happened, nor did I say that.

My last comment was in relation to the preceding paragraph; not the kid's actions.
Mr Rogerson,If you see no difference between a dead body and a live one, there's very little hope for you, or for seeing your comments appearing here.
Sus:

If I grabbed the wrong end of the stick and started gnawing on it, my apologies.

May your Nana meet her end with a cocktail in one hand and a cabana boy in the other. Wait a mo'... she can go get her own deathbed fantasy, 'cause that one's mine. :)
Mr PC

You didn't know there is a difference? There is a difference between a boat and a plane and a cat and a mouse too.

What would you say if the old guy came out and he saw the tagger tagging and he has a complete heart attack and falls over dead because of what he saw the tagger doing to his house? Would you say that tagger is a murderer? Or would it be that the tagger gets punished by making him clean off the tags on the old guy house and a stern telling off and then go home? Now everything is good again? It was an accident and the tagger says he never meant that old guy to be dead like that even though he tagged his house and made him have the heart attack.

So now put it around the other side. What if the old guy is making his mark on the tagger and the tagger dies by an accident? The old guy was only trying to tag him so he would understand why it is not right to tag the old guy's house. Then he died from all his blood leaking out of the tag. But the old guy never made to do it like that. It just turned out that way.

If you ask the old guy if he wanted to murder a tagger I bet he will say to you that he did not want that. I bet he only wanted to make him see how bad it was or how angry he was or even just chase him away and never come back to the house ever again. He tried to do it but it went wrong. The tag was too deep. Or if you like he made too much of a mark on his hide.

It is kind of like when that time when that other guy got killed when he went andd had a tattoo because the tattoo was the wrong one and the ink made his heart stop because the ink was too deap and it was allergic to him. Accidents do happen.

So what was the tagger doing there at that house in the first place? He should not have been there doing what he was up to at all. Imagine if you are found hanging around the women's toilet. Unless you are the cleaner and your sign is up how come you are even there when you should not even be there?

You know how you said you were into tagging. Did you ever go back to and make it right with those people who you tagged? Or is it that it is a worry that those people are still annoyed and they are still out there somewhere and you owe them?

In case you want to know I never tagged anywhere or anything of anyone elses.

Roger and over and out

Roger
Out to lunch?
Elijah

Hypocrit maybe?

Roooger and out

Roger
This incident highlights the clash between Libertarian principles and collectivist ones. Those who applaud the death as a victory against taggers are viewing it through collectivist eyes – the tagger pays the price for the sins of all the other taggers (one collective versus another, homeowners versus taggers). The Libertarian on the other hand sees the case as a more isolated incident and focuses on the individual - murder is the ultimate sin as it robs the individual of everything.

This is similar to the Ali Panah case where many expressed their distinctly collectivist viewpoint - Ali should be thrown out of the country as an example to others, he broke the ‘rules’ he should die sort of thing (one collective versus another, NZr’s versus illegal immigrants). A Libertarian should simply see Ali as an individual seeking freedom.

Collectivist thinking and action protects individuals from personal responsibility and encourages all sorts of atrocious behaviour. It’s a hard habit to break. This blog has certainly helped me recognise my own collectivist sympathies that I now struggle against daily. I don’t always overcome them but I’m working on it.
The Minto myth (updated)
who just happens to live in a relatively expensive house lol

he's so dripping wet he'll be responsible for any rise in sea level
Also, did you know that Minto refused to accept the Nobel Prize for mathematics? That he was never offerred it and there is no such prize is completely irrelevant. So, no doubt he'll be writing to the Swedes any day now and then we'll all get to read about it in the vacuous media. How about that?

LGM
Sort out your own stables first
I'd be a bit surprised if either Levitt or Harford support the fiscal stimulus package. I've not noticed them coming out in favour of such machinations on their blogs (Freakonomics blog and The Undercover Economist). And, it doesn't seem to be the kind of thing they'd support.

In fairness to them with respect to what they do as compared to what you think they should have been doing, they're both microeconomists. Study of business cycles and monetary policy usually comes from macroeconomists. It's kinda like critiquing astronomers whose speciality is looking for near-earth asteroids for missing a supernova a few stars over. Division of labour, eh?
Most macroeconomics is fatuous nonsense. Micro is a bit less dismal.

And most of what these authors describe is hardly economics. They* use some of the same tools as economists (i.e. statistics) but that's about it.

The Freakonomics phenomenon bears more resemblence to epidemiology than to economics. You may regard that as a good thing or a bad thing. :-)

*Tim Harford (The Undercover Economist, The Logic of Life) is slightly more like an economist. He at least talks about incentives and even accidentally mentions the economy at the end of his latest book.Arnold Kling nails it:

"Macroeconomics is the evil twin of classical economics. Classically, we say that work is bad and leisure is good. Resources are limited and wants are unlimited. Macro says that we need to "create jobs." The entire edifice of macro is a monument to what Bryan Caplan scorns as "make-work bias." Classically, we say that saving is good, or at least an acceptable option for consumers. Macro says that if consumers don't spend like drunken sailors, terrible things will happen. Classically, we have nothing good to say about government deficits. Macro says that government deficits provide "stimulus.""

As for whether Freakonomics and Logic of Life count as economics, it depends how you want to define the discipline. If microeconomics is the study of how folks respond to incentives, then we've got pretty broad scope. Harford's new book looks great -- I'm scoping out now which chapters to use in my Econ of Current Policy Issues course. Some of Freakonomics is more epidemiology, but not all. Theory drives a lot of the empirical work. So, for example, first figure out which sumo wrestlers have the strongest incentive to throw which games given the institutional structure, then take the theory to the data.
Crampton

You are wasting your time studying those guys. If you are really serious aboput learning economics try Prof Reisman (Capitalism) or the works of Von Mises (Human action, Socialist Economy, etc).

Now that would have been interesting. Pls elaborate some and tell more about it.

LGM
Why is it always von Mises, an academic, how is run out on these occasions?Why does noone ever mention Allan Greenspan??

Arguably the most powerful unelected technocrat in the world from 87 to 06 was an objectivist. Were his economics "Austrian"??

After Rand herself Greenspan is the most famous of objectivists so why is it I never read a meditation on Greenspan's failures?

Instead I read about yet more Austrian theory, which I happen to agree with, however I would also like reflection on how an "objectivist" of the first rank contributed to two consecutive capital destroying bubbles?? (late 90s stocks and the currently collapsing housing/stock bubble)

All that aside though and more importantly, as "sovereign individuals" I hope you are doing more than blog/blather about economics and are reviewing your personal asset allocations with regards to the debt burden of the USA, its' devaluing $, and soon-to-arrive boomer retirement wave.
Crampton said...Theory drives a lot of the empirical work.

That's absolutely correct. Modern economics have sprung up from being just a descriptive field into deep analytical theoretical modeling, (this transformation started since Harry Markowitz, an Economics Nobel Laureate in 1990, formulated the market optimization theory in the 1950s).

Some people are quite dismissive about economics theoretical modeling saying that economic dynamical systems just can't be modeled. This is the opinions of the uninformed. Such dismissive people would probably prefer to see psychics run our financial institutions, since they see that economic modeling is no different from guess work. But hey, whingers about economic modeling would be the first one to jump up and down if they find out that their banks have hired psychics to predict market price movements. They would protest very hard to their bank managers, saying that they would cease to do business with them, because betting price movements using the forecast of a psychic is more risky.

Capitalism systems or no capitalism, it wouldn't change the fact that an economic system is made up of agents, and agents interact with each other, therefore leading to dynamical system, and this falls right on the doorstep of modeling.
greg b

You are a liar.

Your post displays dishonesty of the worst order.

You cite Greenspan as an Objectivist? You bullshit artist you! How about you read what he wrote about gold in his youth and contrast it with his behaviour when he ran the Fed. What he wrote was certainly different from what he DID. He may have had Objectivist sympathies as a young man. He didn't later on. He certainly had the knowledge to understand that when he was head of the Fed what he did was completely and utterly opposed by Objectivist Philosophy (as well as the Austrian School of Economics). He was no Objectivist. Saying Greenspan when head of the Fed acted as an Objectivist is like saying the Pope runs an abortion clinic.

If you had the slightest clue about the Austrian School of Economics, you would know that what Greenspan did was and is completely opposed by Von Mises just as surely as it was opposed by Objectivism. Shit-oh-dear, maybe you should learn to read and comprehend. Please, stop with the fibbing already.

What a dishonet dope you are. Tell you boyfriend Green he can do better without you.

LGM
Gee whiz Fisi, seems that Mises, who knew a thing or two about economics, disagrees with you. Regarding mathematical and statistical models, he reckoned they were of limited use in UNDERSTANDING what really occurs in real political economy. Reckon I'll stick with him. After all according to various models my house has been under 10 feet of water since 2002, (except it aint).

Too much bullshit going on. Models are only as good as their firm young tits anyway and, as is well said, appearances can be deceiving...

LGM
LGM,thanks for the quasi-fanatical outburst.You know what gnosticism is? Are you an objectivist gnostic? Or a puritan?LGM,thanks for the zealous outburst.To all you points I say, "well, duh! Obviously!"

I now wonder if Greenspan was insufficiently "pure"? Has he been drummed out of the clan and deleted from the official club history or something?

It's obvious that an unelected civil-servant like Greenspan isn't allowed to follow personal convictions. (duh)So if you misunderstood that tacit fact then I must endeavour to be clearer.I didn't mean to imply that he was insulting the corpses of Rand and Mises with his bubble management.

Likewise, I don't think I said he "acted like an Objectivist" (duh). I said he could be personally identified as an Objectivist and that he "contributed" to bubbles, I didn't nail his actions down to "objectivism" (duh).

I was asking for a reflection on the irony of one of the most famous Objectivists caught in a prolonged situation contrary to their desired position.

The second irony is that Greenspan, A PRACTIONEER, is ignored in these discussions led by self-described realists, indeed to the point of drawing lexical scimitars, and von Mises et al., AN IVORY TOWER THEORIST, is hallowed. Why? Because theory is sterile, safe and provides cliche discussions for cliqued bloggers. Pondering the works of Greenspan is not as "pure". His portrait isn't on the clubhouse wall.I also said I agreed with Mises. (DUH!!!)

Irony.Just in case you lack it here's a definition:"All the different senses of irony revolve around the perceived notion of an incongruity, or a gap between an understanding of reality, or expectation of a reality, and what actually happens."

Also, you missed the most important part of my post:a reminder to review your personal asset allocation,i.e. when did you get out of US equities and what level did you buy gold at?Or are you too busy blogging?
greg b

You are a cheap fibber and your elaborate excuses and rationalisations do little to disguise that. Fact is, you were caught in a lie and now you need to spin and spin and spin to try and get out of it. You're not a good writer of excuses and not much good at fiction either; you should get your hands out of your pockets, wipe the spit off your chin and stop with the furfies now.

Greenspan denied being an Objecivist in several interviews, two of them recently. He went on the record to state that he regarded the founder of Objectivism, Ayn Rand, with great respect and considered her ideas motivating and reliable but confirmed he was not an Objectivist. Get that? He said he is not an Objectivist. The man said he isn't. Yet you say he is an Objectivist of the first order? Fibs.

That's strike one against greg b the liar.

If you bothered to check out the record of your great PRACTIONER you'd quickly discover he failed in private business and quickly turned to a state funded sinecure (welfarist that he is) for a bail out career. Had he been a practitioner of the philosophy of Objectivism he would not have done that. That action would not even have been considered. Instead Greenspan became the leading practioner of the fraud of debasing the money supply. He joined the organisation that does it and he accelerated the fraud.

That's strike two against greg b the liar.

Interesting how you attept to smear von Mises as an academioc theortician (as if such pursuits are without value or truth). You appear to consider that being an academic researcher somehow makes a man's discoveries and teaching worth less. You regurgitate the old mind-body dichotomy falsehood. It's an invalid approach. Nevertheless, you also choose to misrepresent the facts, probably deliberately (which is no surprise). Von Mises worked as a practising economist consulting to business and government long before his escape to the USA, where he published some of his important works (which summarised what he had learned and proved in practice).

That's strike three against greg b the liar.

You're out, fool!

BTW why would anyone take investment advice from the likes of you? You're a proven liar and likely too incompetant to invest your own money (should you actually have any), let alone advise others about investing theirs. Odds are your "advice" is a cut and paste from someone else- which would explain why it's been seen before...

Go away.

LGM
Plan Red for youngsters
ITs great election policy though for getting votes, as the people it effects can't do anything about it.

Watch as youth are blamed for all of societys ills this year.
Gates and the wealth of nations
Perhaps those billions would be better spent on a mercenary army with which to invade these countries and remove their dictatorships.
Perhaps Africa would be better off if it had fewer mercenaries and "freedom fighters", not more of them.
On voting
My recent policy has been to write the name "John Galt" on the ballot paper.

In 2005 I was an Election Day Worker. Tallying the votes around a huge table. I heard the immortal words;"Who is John Galt"

mmm.. that must have been my paper.
Tugendhat house - Mies van der Rohe
No answer
Two notes:

2. Given the high level of 'employment' and social support currently enjoyed by the proles and the disconcerting frequency of murders what will the crime rate be like if we have a "recession"??
PC,

I'm not convinced the interest rate is higher than it would be if we switched to some sort of intermediate market mechanism. (By this I mean the RBNZ saying "we're not printing any more money so you banks and lending societies need to bid for it".)

We've been printing stacks of money which has fueled underpinned massive malinvestment and a reduction in the underlying real capital base. This would lead to the inflation we're now seeing but not to lower interest rates - the rates would reflect the need for reduction of consumption and increased saving.

In a market environment you would expect the rates to drop following the recent liquidation. I agree that pushing them up in response to the regulation-fuelled increase in the cost of housing is mistaken but am not sure this translates to our interest costs being too high.

Of course, it's impossible to tell what interest rates should be but I'm inclined to agree with Shostak that rates have been held artificially low for political reasons.

What makes you think they should be lower? Comparisons with other developed countries are a bit limited if those countries have a similar monetary system.
Voucher schmoucher
True, but short of a Libertarian government such a system is not going to happen.

While I agree in principal that the state should have no involvement in education whatsoever you know as well as I do that that is a very long way off, especially in the current political climate where anything remotely related to privatisation is likened to having an interest in Kiddy porn.

So... with the Hobsons choice that is labours policies vs national's policies, this is a *step* in the right direction.
Actually this raises an interesting question in my mind - how many Labour MPs and officials send their kids to PRIVATE schools? Anyone want to do some digging??
Mikee

If you huve chilren and you send them to the scools in NZ thun you can be guaranteed they'll turn out just as igorint and thuck as the rust of thu Kiwus (dirt stupid bastards, they be). Ruckon a provate system HAS to be better.

LGM
Another murderer dead
Having said all that PC, the truth is that without Suharto it may have been worse - the PKI was progressively "communising" Indonesia regionally, he put a stop to this, no differently than the attempts by western allies in Vietnam and Korea, both of which cost the lives of many thousands of innocents. However, he should have given up 35 years ago.
Sounds to me like the 'Pinochet Argument.' (He might have been a murderer, but at least he was **our** murderer.) I don't buy it.

It was the same argument used by the Nazis in the thirties, by the way. Stick with us, they said, and we'll protect the west from those nasty Bolsheviks.

Apparently that's a more compelling argument than I ever realised.
I'm hardly giving him a get out of jail card, but I am acknowledging the realpolitik of the time. If I was an Australian PM in the mid 1960s I too might have been glad that Suharto dealt to communism in Indonesia before it became the Australian problem.

It doesn't justify the means or excuse his record, or excuse the Western support of his rule, but it does explain acquiescence in the face of it all. It enters the esoteric world of "what ifs". A similar attitude could have seen the US turn its back on Syngman Rhee, Park Chung Hee, Chun Doo Hwan because they were all murderous thugs too - and see Kim Il Sung ruin South Korea.

You can support, acquiesce or oppose the likes of Suharto, acquiescing would have been understandable under the circumstances.
No free speech in election year
You'r next ...
In my experience, those on the political left have never shown any real support for freedom of speech when it comes to anyone who disagrees with them. Those on the right may consider you a fool at worst for disagreeing with them but lefties for some reason just demonize you.
It's murder
Don't worry we'll be protected from Borat outfits during the Rugby Sevens.
Actually, although I am dismayed by the ghastly trend emerging thus far this year, I am heartened that the citizenry is beginning to show signs of acting in its own defence.

In the case of this toerag Pihema Cameron, it seems that this is a case of one little shite who won't grow up to be a baby-killer or a P-crazed murderer.

Killing him was, perhaps, an overreaction, though, I'll grant you. A more appropriate punishment would have been to cut one of his hands off or break both of his arms with a baseball bat.

In any event, I would be willing to bet that the graffiti problem in Southview Place and Mahia Road has been solved for a while.

Of course, a less extreme measure would be to have an actual Police force patrolling the streets and tasked with preventing these assholes from habitually engaging in their animal territory-marking antisocial behaviour. But that would be WAY too radical, wouldn't it? No, I'm being silly now...
What is the punishment for being caught tagging I wonder? Probably just a stern look. I can’t deny that I was pleased someone fought back against this blight - maybe I too am infected with the rage virus that seems so prevalent these days.. I really hope that the knife belonged to the kid – we should wait until we know all the facts before we pass judgement.
Cue Card Libertarianism: Education
How True :)

On another note, have Montessori's teachings been succesfully implemented on secondary school students? As much as I can agree with her philosophy, it seems that her method could only be applied to primary students.
Dr Montessori herself was primarily concerned with designing her system for children aged 0-6, and then for 6-12 year olds.

She left notes on how her system might be developed for secondary and even tertiary students which have been taken up by contemporary Montessorians, and in recent years more and more successful 'Montessori' secondary schools have been established, three of them in NZ.

Among the most interesting is David Kahn's 'Erdkinder' Hershey Montessori School in Ohio. Says the Erdkinder Blog: "Hershey Montessori Farm School is the only Montessori adolescent program in the world that has developed a complete prepared environment as described in Maria Montessori’s writings (the Appendices to her book From Childhood to Adolescence), with a full boarding component. The Farm School is the only existing Montessori adolescent project with an “Erdkinder prepared environment,” including a youth “hostel” (dorm), a bed-and-breakfast, an operating farm, and a functioning micro-economy with a community farm market (shop). Hershey Montessori Farm School model proved that the Montessori Syllabus is workable and able to provide structure that is comprehensive and uniquely connected to the psychological characteristics of the adolescent."
Cheers !
Peter, whilst I agree with you that state brainwashing of our children is abominable etc and standards of literacy and numeracy have been all but sacrificed at the altar of political mind-fucking for the benefit of a corrupt and grasping government.... (do I paraphrase correctly?)... I don't see that simply chanting the mantra about "the removal of the state from education" will do anything to repair our parlous situation.

Most school children would prefer to be donating their kidneys without anaesthetic than to be stuck in a classrom, and most parents are either too lazy, to disorganised or too stupid to make their children attend school unless they are vitually forced to do so. The only reason many children attend a school at all (however poor the education) is that they are compelled by law to do so, and in return their parents are fed the convenient lie that the little buggers are being 'educated'.

If you simply "remove the state from education", how the fuck do you think that will help in any way?

In my view, the state should be forced out of peoples' lives in a huge amount of areas, but there are certain basic services (or infrastructures if you like) where it is the duty of government to supply excellence. Education is one of these, as is Law & Order, Defence and Health.

I don't think our education system is serving our future at all well; but the answer is to force the fucking government to live up to their responsibilities, not to just let them off the hook. Remember when our nation was depleted and exhausted by two world wars in which our losses exceeded per capita many of our allies'? In the '50s and '60s this country still managed to have an eviable level of literacy, numeracy and a broadly and successfully educated poulation which enabled the country to be one of the most progressive in its time. Education was the domain of the state and it was working properly for the benefit of the citizenry. We can achieve this again if we have the will and the focus.

A good place to start would be to re-introduce a proper examination system and start firing principals who fail after a reasonable grace priod to turn out fully literate and numerate pupils. This would be the first step. Then we should progress to criminal prosecution of said principals (the death camps would only be necessary as an extreme measure...).
David

You must be kidding! The state education system NEVER worked. It produced generations of ignorance, socialism, petty jealousy and small mindedness. Read your history on what NZ schools were like and the type of "culture" they promoted.

It is not the state's role to educate. Just because YOU want it to is not a justification. Kick the monopolists from the govt out of it and there'll soon be private suppliers present. The problems can be solved IF PEOPLE ARE ALLOWED TO (as in not stopped by central govt, teacher unions, education academics and all the rest of those thugs- monopolists all).

LGM
lgm, no I am not kidding at all.

State education produced a nation that, despite being an underpopulated pimple on the bottom of the world, was No 4 (or thereabouts) on the OECD list. This led to things like a fantastic infrastructure, good roads, drinkable water, a health system that was ahead of its time, industry that actually produced things (me made our own trains), three proper universities, ground breaking scientific and agricultural research establishments.... the list goes on.

In the 1930s, New Zealand's answer to the starvation and hardship of the poor brought about largely by the depression was for the state to intervene and give the out-of-work a temporary 'hand up'. This was entirely appropriate to the situation at that time.

What we see now is a country plunging dramatically into the third world (I kid you not) as the poisonous effects of generations of extremist socialism infect the lifeblood of our society because the 'hand up' philosophy has been allowed to mutate into an entitlement mentality that completely saps the will of the people to make an effort in their lives. The problem is not that the State is involved in education; the problem is that the state is rotten and degenerate.

How, exactly, do you suppose a totally state-free education system would succeed? The people in this country can hardly be persuaded to go to work any more, let alone educate their children.
Dave

A nation with a guaranteed market for all the agricultural product it could produce, a country with titanic resources (mineral and otherwise- still hardly exploited), a country with so much potential.... and it got no better than #4 at a time when those other countries were economically devastated?

Seriously, this place should have been way ahead of Singapore and HK by now. But it is nowhere. Once those other countries got out of the depression and the devastation of war they left NZ in the dust. Kiwis have been kidding themselves for decades about how well things used to be and how well they once did. The facts are different.

Those famed socialist and egalitarian experiments of the 30s onward necessarily led to the mess of NZ today. That is what govt intervention in areas it does not belong (such as education and heathcare and diet and broadcasting, banking and welfare etc etc etc) necessarily results in. What happened was that statist NZers consumed the capital value that had been built up or invested previously (they didn't invest it or use it to create more wealth, they consumed it). When that ran out they consumed the capital of the future (ultimately mortgaging against the future earnings of their own children and grand-children). Then when the note got called they sold what assets were still left. None of this was possible in the absence of government. Govt allowed the colectivisation of what weath was in NZ and allowed its dissapation. Simple as that.

Now what has this got to do with education? The state always was "rotten and degenerate" in NZ. That's why it should not ever have been allowed to be involved in things like education. What you are experiencing today is the result of these foolish interventions.

Now consider. What was not seen?, as Bastiat asked. What would the plundered wealth of individuals have been able to have produced if it hadn't been expropriated and squandered on socialist experiments?

LGM
lgm, I repeat, whilst a good deal of what you say is true regarding the decline of New Zealand, it is not the state's role in EDUCATION per se that is responsible, it is the WAY the state has EXCERCISED it by reducing standards and failing utterly to enforce even these reduced standards.

And again I ask " How, exactly, do you suppose a totally state-free education system would succeed?"

How would you propose non-state involved education would work, exactly?

I don't think you or PC have thought this through at all. Its all very well to keep repeating your mantra, but how actually do you propose to educate children in your glorious free world? Vouchers with Big Macs?
Dave

The state has no legitimate role in education. Never did.

When the state enters the realm of education it rapidly becomes a monopolist. It sets the syllabus, it determines who will be allowed to teach and what they will be allowed to teach, it determines what the objectives of the system will be and how they will be pursued, it determines who shall be forced to pay and it expropriates the time and wealth of those people regardless of their particular values. Worst of all, it sets all prices and eliminates competition. There is left no room for alternatives.

Ultimately all alternatives get marginalised until they are regulated out of existence; forced to cease. That occurs because is it the nature of the state to behave in exactly the way it does. Granting it a role for which its nature is unsuited gives the result you are worried about; failures at every level. Given decades of disgrace and failure why would you want to continue on the same pathway? That is analogous to asking a known rapist to look after your 16 year old daughter for the evening. You wouldn't do that would you? He's already a known criminal... It's in his nature to look after her; to REALLY look after her (if you get what I mean).

The reason the state exercises the powers it awards to itself (in the realm of education) in such a poor way is due to its nature. It has no competance to rule education, let alone to be involved. That's why it necessarily fails and that is another reason why it has not a legitimate role to be involved in the education sphere.

Put it this way, while my doctor may have competance to treat certain illnesses (and not others), he is certainly not competant to control the finances of all the patients. That is right outside what his legitimate role actually is (giving medical advice and undertaking medical procedures as and when requested).

---

Perhaps you need to read some. Try to comprehend what PC actually wrote. He pointed out (in several posts) that vouchers are not a method that prevent the state from interfering with education. All that voucher stuff achieves is to alter the particular processes employed in the adminisration of the system. Little else is changed. The results will remain exactly as they are presently; poor. (Of course, that does depend on your perspective. Mine, and I suspect yours too, is that I want my children to be well educated and free. I want them to be individualistic. The state may not want this at all. They want compliance and "well socialised children". Sameness. Obedience. Subservience to the national myths. The teacher unions don't really care. It's all about retained sinecure for them. And, well behaved, non problematic kids. For the statist the education system is going along just fine. No serious problems except noisey parents and a little media issue from time to time.)

How would a private education system operate? We parents would not be taxed to provide any state schemes and state involvement within education. I could choose who teaches my childrean and exactly what they get taught. These days I have a limited set of choices and I have to pay twice. Once for a state system I don't subscribe to and once for the actual services my kids actually receive. In a private system I'd only pay for what I wanted for my children. Pay once. I'd also get to choose independently of state interference.

BTW had you ever considered how other markets for goods and services operate? How do people ever feed themselves in the absence of a nationalised food distribution system? Think on it.

LGM
lgm, thank you for the explanation - although it was a long time coming and occupied part of the penultimate paragraph only.

Your 'answer' is not really an answer at all. Only about 15-20% of parents would be either organised or motivated to seek private education for their children if the state wasn't involved and it wasn't compulsory by law. You and I might have these noble qualities, but, if the chips were down, 80% of parents would just let thie whole question ride. They might try 'a bit of home schooling' for a while, or they might fall for TV ads that sell a 'holistic natural Gaia education supplement', or the local marae might offer a few courses in advanced flax weaving at inflated prices.... but generally speaking only a small elite would learn to read and write, and an even smaller elite would obtain a comprehensive and workable education of their minds.

We already have private options in education. Its not perfect and its not pure in the Libertarian way of thinking, I know, but there are, nevertheless, private alternatives available.

The previous comments about Montessori, as well as other alternatives such as Steiner Schools etc go to show that we already have the option of a different educational system to the state system. Your objections are simply idealogical and not based on reason or fact.
Dave,

It's a bit rich of you to claim to know what 80% of parents would do about their children's education in the absence of state interference. You speak for yourself only. You do not know what such a large body of people would actually do in the circumstance. Bastiat's writings regarding the loss of the unseen comes to mind.

Perhaps in NZ there are a lot of stupid people about the show these days, but hey, they are the products of the very education scheme you prattle on about- you know, the state run system, the one that promotes the ideas that lead to the disasters you claimed to have been concerned about (but actually aren't really serious about beyond a superficial level). These "bad parents" are the product of the very system you wish to promote. It hasn't worked for decades and yet you want to continue on with it? Damn! Surely you wouldn't really leave the known rapist to babysit your daughter? Surely not?

A causal agent in the failure of the stupid to make good decisions is the very agent you want to preserve. That is the agent that prevents them for experiencing the consequences of their own decisions and actions and learning from them.

When left to themselves people form values and look after their own interests. They pursue those values. They get very good at making rational choices provided they are allowed to experience the consequences of choices and actions. Some will make errors and mistakes. Some will learn from those and do better in future. Some will make really titanic errors, but that is life and it aint about being egalitarian or "fair" (whatever that term may happen to mean this week).

Interestingly enough, many people quickly recognise that should they have children, it is in their own best interest to have the children well educated. This is no big surprise. Take a serious look at the historical record and you'll see a common theme of people struggling to get their children educated, often at enormous cost to themselves.

Having children is a big overhead and a massive drain on resources and time. Assuming you are the one investing all this resource it does not take much thinking to determine what is the best policy. On the other hand, if a "parent" is existing on receiving "free" money and services, well then, they may not give a tinkers cuss about the kids at all. Having children in such circumstance is of no serious consequence. It requires little thought or action. Big nanny takes care of one's consequences. Ask yourself, what is providing the "free" money and resource exactly.... What outfit might that be?

As an aside, it does not take a lot of wit to appreciate that when one gets older, it is one's own children whom must ultimately be relied on for a continued life, let alone a life of some small pleasure and happiness. If you are going to the bother of having children and keeping them around, then it is unlikely to be good policy to stunt their intellect and retard their productive/tradeable skills. It does not take very long to work that out, not even for 80% of your fellow New Zealanders, the ones you so casualy wrote-off. They are not all as stupid as you might like to think.

Perhaps you may like to consider how it was that prior to compulsory state run education schemes people learned to read, write, count and acquire skills and knowledge. How was it that the rate of functional literacy was higher in the US prior to the advent of the compulsory state run school than it is now?

BTW the private examples you mention are controlled by the state. Who can teach, what they can teach, what qualifications and allegiances and registrations they must have, who they can teach to etc. are all controlled by the state. At any time the state can decide what extra burdens and restrictions can be placed on "private" alternatives. As stated, they are gradually squeezed out and away. Check it out.

Final point. You seriously need to do some solid research in this area instead of repeating the national myths and legends that get regurgitated whenever this topic comes up. Likely you'd be most surprised by what you'd find.

LGM
It’s great to see this information being shared...
Too few busybodies
Isn't it good to see that constructively bitching and moaning about matters can have a positive and tangible effect?
Good news Peter! on my weblog I highlight an appalling situation where, alas, there are too many of these dreadful chaps.
4 Days without a post Peter! I was almost worried you had been whisked off to Siberia."4 Days without a post Peter! I was almost worried you had been whisked off to Siberia."

I whisked myself up to Matakana for Auckland's Anniversary weekend. What a fine place it is too. Tawharanui beach has to be one of the best places to spend a day at the beach. Just beautiful.

"Isn't it good to see that constructively bitching and moaning about matters can have a positive and tangible effect?"

That's just what I thought, too. :-)
Demographia have established a direct correlation between the number of planners per thousand population and the decline in the number of houses built per thousand population.So close the planning schools and build more houses.
Money: "Pathology & reality"